The Magnificent but Tragic Life of Edward IrvingThe Forerunner of the Charismatic Movement

The Life of Edward Irving(August 4, 1792 * December 7, 1832)

by

Arnold Dallimore

A Brief Study of Edward Irving

by

Dr. Stanford E. Murrell

Edward Irving was a Presbyterian minister who served in London from 1822

until his death of tuberculosis on December 7, 1834 at the age of 42. He was buried

in the crypt of Glasgow Cathedral in Scotland. What makes Mr. Irving worth

knowing is that he made popular many novel concepts that have proven to be

foundational to the modern charismatic movement.

First, Edward Irving was willing to believe that God was giving new

revelations. His training as a Presbyterian minister taught him that God had

provided a completed revelation in the Scriptures. For many years Irving believed

this and defended the historic position.

But when he heard the utterance in a tongue and its interpretation into

English, he became dogmatic in his assurance that this was the very voice of God.

He believed that the words spoken “in power” were inspired speech and that they

constituted a new revelation equal in authority to the Bible.

To the end of his life Mr. Irving never wavered from this reversed position

even when one leading lady in the tongues movement confessed that she practiced

what she would say in church and other leaders came to the conclusion that the

utterances were of human origin.

Herein lies a most important lesson for today. Not only did the belief in new

revelation ruin Irving’s career as a Presbyterian minister, when he allowed tongues

to break out in the worship service, but it will mean the ruin of an orthodox faith of

any who accept it. The idea of further revelations not only robs the Scriptures of

their finality and therefore of their authority, but also strikes at the very

foundations of Christianity. It allows every man to become a law unto himself and

to ‘do that which is right in his own eyes’, and leaves mankind without a definite

‘Thus saith the Lord!’ on any subject.

Of course, many of the charismatic people today stand firm in defense of the

Scriptures. But Irving’s experience points out the grave danger of accepting even

the possibility of ‘new revelation’ and indicates the necessity for all who believe

The Book stoutly to reject all professed further revelations, whether they be in

visions or dreams or the hearing of voices, and to hold solely to the finished

revelation, the written and inerrant Word of God.

Second, Edward Irving embraced biblically unsound ideas regarding

sickness and healing. Mr. Irving taught that “bodily disease is the direct infliction

of Satan, and that therefore faith and prayer, and these only, should be employed

as the means of deliverance from it.” Fortunately, Mr. Irving was not always

consistent with his stated beliefs for when his young children were extremely sick,

doctors were allowed to examine them. Nevertheless, three of his children died.

Irving took this as a form of God’s judgment in his life combined with Satan’s

infliction. Illness and trouble were to Irving evidences of Divine displeasure.

Not only is this position unscriptural, it is cruel. It was cruel to Mr. Irving

himself and cruel to others suffering ill health or tragedy. There are many reasons

why God allows pain and suffering. Divine displeasure is only one.

In regards to healing, Mr. Irving believed that healing was available in every

instance of sickness provided there was sufficient faith present. Many a victim of

disease must have found his pain increased by the feeling he was either suffering

the angry judgment of God or the cruel wrath of Satan—especially when healing

did not come and he lingered in agony.

Furthermore, if ever a man was convinced he was going to be healed it was

Irving during the last months of his sickness. That part of the story is very

heartbreaking. It began in this way.

One of the Prophets, so called, that Irving had come to trust and submit to,

speaking ‘in the Spirit’, declared it was the command of God that Irving leave

London and go to Glasgow and that God had a great work for him to do there.

Some years earlier another man named Robert Baxter had prophesied that Edward

would some day go to Scotland and there be used in a mighty way by God. Irving

now united this promise in his mind with his own assurance that God would heal

him and grant him all the charismatic gifts he believed in but had never

experienced: tongues, healing and prophetic utterances.

With this expectancy before him, Irving set out for Glasgow. The month was

September and he traveled alone. Before his journey ended Irving was to grow

increasingly weak despite attempts to believe he was healed. On one particular

occasion in the early hours of the morning he placed a wash basin on the floor of

his room, stood in it and poured a larger pitcher of cold water over his head and let

it run down to his feet. He was trying to break a constant fever. After this cold bath

he told himself his fever was gone, but before an hour or two had passed he knew

it was as bad as ever. His body grew weaker. The miracle of healing was denied,

his life steadily ebbed away and he came down to an untimely death in December

1834. The church today should be instructed and warned by the unscripturalness of

Irving’s belief and its sad effect in his own darkest hour.

Then third, there are some practical lessons to be learned from the

general failure of Irving’s career as a minister among which is the

consequences of abandoning pastoral authority. At the close of his first year in

London, in 1822, Irving stood on the pinnacle of fame. He was only thirty-two and

it seemed he could not fail to go on to a life of the greatest success. By all the

contemporary accounts he was destined for greatness and magnificent

accomplishments.

Members of Parliament came to hear him preach.

The highest echelon of society crowded into his church.

A larger building had to be erected to hold the people who were blessed by

his eloquence and insights into the Scriptures. All Irving had to do was to hold to

his Presbyterian beliefs and contend for the faith once and for all delivered to the

saints.

But that did not happen for Irving began to listen to men such as A. J. Scott

to accept the restoration of the apostolic charismatic gifts. Under Scott’s influence

Irving accepted the idea of two definite stages in the Christian life, the first that of

regeneration and the second that of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The baptism of

the Holy Ghost was evidenced by ‘speaking in tongues’.

From the moment Irving separated the baptism of the Holy Spirit from

salvation and believed in two distinctly different levels of the Christian life neither

he nor his ministry was the same. Believing, as he did, that only those who spoke

in tongues had received the baptism with the Holy Spirit, Irving regarded these

persons as on the higher level and therefore as much superior in spiritual power.

All others he looked upon as on the lower level and as spiritually inferior.

Since he himself had never spoken in tongues Irving began to submit

himself to the Prophets. Since they spoke in tongues he conceded to them a

position far superior to his own, and thereafter his life came under their control. In

practical terms this means that as a minister he surrendered his pastoral authority.

As a person he no longer had the freedom, liberty or ambition to write or be active

or believe that the Holy Spirit could lead him too. In this manner a life that could

have been so great a success came down to disappointment and failure. The

Prophets dominated his life and arrogated to themselves virtually a total authority

in the management of the affairs of the church, and Irving, wanting to be humble

and living in the belief that they conveyed the voice of God, felt he had no choice

but to submit.

The Prophets constructed in the worship area of now new Catholic Apostolic

Church on Newman Street in London an unusual platform—it had six levels. The

highest level was for the Apostles such as the lawyer J. B. Cardale, and slightly

below that was the level for the Prophets. And then in descending order came those

for the Elders, the Evangelists and the Deacons. Finally, at the lowest level, was

the place for the one whom, in keeping with the designation used in the Book of

the Revelation, they termed ‘the Angel’ or ‘the Messenger’—this was Irving. The

natural esteem and honor that the Scriptures instruct be given to the Elder for the

office he holds was denied.

All of this could have been avoided if Irving had not surrendered his

pastor authority and embraced an erroneous view of the Christian life. Had

Irving kept on believing that the presence of the Holy Spirit is an integral part of

regeneration and not something radically distinct from it, he might have joined the

ranks of other men of his century. Robert Murray M’Cheyne, David Livingstone,

C. H. Spurgeon and George Muller, the German who maintained the orphan houses

in England, are true examples of a holy life and the enduement with ‘power from

on high’ though they never spoke in tongues or prophesied. These men were born

again and indwelt by the Spirit of God. For them the Christian life was one of

steady increase in being ‘filled with the Spirit’ and a daily growing in grace and in

the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.’

Another practical lesson from the life of Edward Irving is that doctrinal

error breeds more doctrinal error. At the same time that Irving came to believe

in a two-stage view of the Christian life, he embraced the idea that Jesus Christ

possessed a sinful nature.

Though some within the Church have taught that Christ could sin, the orthodox

position has always been that the Lord Jesus Christ could not have sinned. W.E.

Best explains.

“The point of view that Christ could sin is designated by the idea of peccability,

and the fact that He could not sin is expressed by the term impeccability. To

suggest the capability or possibility of sinning would disqualify Christ as Savior,

for a peccable Christ would mean a peccable God. Holiness is far more than the

absence of sin; it is positive virtue. The advocates of peccability say,

'Christ could have sinned, but He did not.'

However to say that Christ could have sinned is to deny positive holiness. To

deny positive holiness, therefore, is to deny the holy character of God. Holiness is

positive virtue that has neither room for nor interest in sin.” (Studies in the

Person and Work of Jesus Christ)

In discussing the Doctrine of the Impeccability of Christ, a person must

remember several foundational truths. First, Jesus could not have sinned because

Christ is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophecies that are grounded

in the eternal decrees of God. The divine decree foreordained that the Messiah

would be without sin and therefore a worthy Savior. “For unto us a child is born,

unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his

name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting

Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6). To say that Jesus could not have sinned is

to say that the decrees of God could not fail as they were manifested in fulfilled

prophecies.

Second, Jesus could not have sinned because there is something called

moral certitude. If someone were to give you a butcher knife and invite you to

cut out the eyes of your child for the mere pleasure of it, you would recoil in

horror. You could not do that! If you were offered a million dollars for cutting out

the eyes and ten million dollars more if you drove a nail into the child's brain, you

could not do that! You would die before you harmed your child in such a manner.

The soul of Jesus Christ was so holy and so pure that the suggestion of any sin was

just as abhorrent as the scenario set out above. Jesus could not sin.

Third, it must never be forgotten that Jesus was not two persons in one

body. He was one Person with two natures. While He was truly human, He was

altogether God, and as the God-man He could not sin.

Fourth, the capacity to sin is not what makes man. If there were no

capacity to sin, man would still be man; there was no sin in Adam when he was

first created, yet he is called man (Genesis 2:7). In resurrected bodies believers will

still be human but without the sin nature. Whatever constitutes man as man does

not necessitate sin or a sin nature. Therefore, it was not necessary that Jesus have

the moral capacity to sin in order to be true humanity.

Finally, to embrace a concept that there was the possibility of Jesus’ sinning

but that He simply chose not to, might make one feel psychologically good as it

makes Jesus seem to be more like “me.” However, Jesus is not like “me.” No one

who is born of a virgin is just like “me.” No one who is truly God is just like

“me.” Jesus did not come into the world to be just like other men. He came to

rescue fallen men from the depths of sin into which they had fallen.

To believe that Jesus could have sinned if He so chose is an unworthy

thought of Him, for it presupposes that there is still something in His nature

susceptible to sin. Logically, this means that Christ was not and is not quite perfect.

Christ was not perfect because He consistently chose not to sin. He was perfect and

therefore He was without sin. Jesus was perfect in Mary's womb. He was perfect in

the hour of His birth. He was perfect as a child. He was perfect as a man in His

ministry. He was perfect in His death. And He is perfect today in His glorified,

resurrection body.

To say that Christ could have sinned is to say that Christ could still sin yet,

He just chooses not to.

The peccability of Christ is unacceptable to a high view of Christology.

Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday, and forever. He did not and He could not

sin. Early Church councils were called to give form to and defend this truth and

they did. So did the Presbyterian church of England during the days of Mr. Edward

Irving.

In April of 1832 the Presbytery ordered Irving to stand trail before them and

he did. Not willing to recant his public opinion about Christ possessing a sinful

nature Edward Irving was condemned for heresy. The verdict read in part:

“Therefore this Presbytery, having seriously and deliberately considered the

complaint and the evidence adduced…do find…that the said Edward Irving has

redendered himself unfit to remain the ministry of the National Scot Church and

ought to be removed therefrom…” And so he was.

What is to be said of the charismatic movement in whole and in part?

First, those within the charismatic movement generally mean well. For

the most part no one should question the sincerity of those who want to believe that

all the gifts associated with the early church are valid and functional today. The

magnificent but tragic life of Edward Irving offers one example of a devout but

deluded minister of the gospel who desperately wanted to see God give to His

church the gift of tongues, healing, prophecy and apostles.

Upon hearing of Irving’s death, Robert Murray M’Cheyne, who was a

theological student at the time, wrote in his Diary, “I look back upon him with

awe, as on the saints, and martyrs of old. A holy man, in spite of all his delusions

and errors. He is now with his God and Saviour, whom he wronged so much, yet, I

am persuaded, loved so sincerely.”

Second, those within the charismatic movement are not completely

wrong in everything they say and do.

The charismatics have called attention to the Person and work of God theHoly Spirit—and that is not wrong.

The charismatics have reminded the Church there is a vital relationship to beenjoyed with the living Lord—and that is not wrong.

The charismatics have reminded the Church that worship need not be deadand sterile. There are emotions to enjoy and incorporate in the celebration ofGod.

The charismatics have sought after spiritual gifts—and that is not wrong todo. Writing to the saints in Corinth Paul said, “Even so ye, forasmuch as yeare zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of thechurch” (1 Cor. 14:12).

Having said all of that it must also be stated that the charismatic movement

opens itself to doctrinal error, practical abuse, and demonic influence, which is the

most frightening part of the movement.

When Edward Irving taught a two-fold stage of salvation and separated theindwelling of the Holy Spirit from regeneration he moved into doctrinalerror.

When Irving taught the “sinful substance of the Savior” he embracedheresy, which is extreme doctrinal error.

When Irving led his people to believe that the only acceptable means ofphysical healing was through prayer and faith he was not only in doctrinalerror, he was cruel.

When Irving insisted that only Satan was behind sickness and that allsickness was the judgment of God upon the life, he was Scripturallyunsound and cruel.

When individuals in Irving’s congregation began to speak in an ecstaticutterance in the public worship services in a practical way they abusedwhatever spiritual gift might have been present for they did not follow theguidelines of Scriptures.

When the genuine gift of tongues is manifested in an assembly it will notbe in the voice of a woman for the Biblical command on this matter isstated in 1 Corinthians 14:34 “Let your women keep silence in thechurches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they arecommanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.”

When the genuine gift of tongues is manifested in an assembly it is not tobe uttered unless there is an interpreter present and then only two or three

at the most is allowed to speak. 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 “If any manspeak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, andthat by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, lethim keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and toGod.”

When the genuine gift of prophecy is manifested in an assembly it is notto be exercised by more than two or three times at the most. 1Corinthians 14:29-30 “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let theother judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let thefirst hold his peace.”

When individuals in Irving’s congregation suspended their intellect in orderto open their mind to ecstatic utterances they became prime candidates fordemonic influences. That possibility continues today. Therefore, listen toPaul as he says “What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will praywith the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing withthe understanding also” (1 Cor 14:15).

Whenever Satan can get people to suspend their intellect in order to openthemselves up to channeling then he has a point of entry into the life. Thosewho speak in tongues do not know if they are praising God or cursing Himor just uttering childish gibberish without an interpreter. There is a naiveassumption that God is being worshipped. The Biblical anti-dote for this isto try the spirits whether they are of God or not. 1 John 4:1 “Beloved,believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: becausemany false prophets are gone out into the world.”

Why then do people express themselves in ecstatic utterances? There are two

reasons. First, some really do believe they are praying a heavenly prayer

language even though they cannot understand it. Secondly, there is an

emotional pleasure that is derived from the experience. It is as simple as that.

Religious people worship in a way that is pleasing to them and brings pleasure.

The concerned Christian will ask, “But is it real?” Edward Irving gave up

his Presbyterian ministry and then his very life believing that tongues are real,

modern day prophets and their prophecies are real, men who claimed to be apostles

are real, and healings by faith alone are real.

Ironically, some of those closest to him in the early days of the charismatic

awakening saw the error of their ways. Some who had believed in the

manifestations found they could not continue in that belief and had come to the

conviction that these things, instead of being miraculous were merely human.

George Pilkington and Richard Baxter are notable examples that not only

renounced the movement but circulated publications why they had left it behind.

Miss Hall, one of the six original ‘gifted ones’ declared she had given up all belief

in the manifestations. Indeed, she even confessed she had sometimes rehearsed at

home the utterances she intended to burst forth with in the Church.

When the mind is engaged and an objective examination is made of the

tongues movement based on the Word of God the following conclusions can be

drawn.

There is no objective evidence that tongues, apostles, prophets orprophecies, the gift of knowledge or special working of miraclesexists today. When the ecstatic utterances are manifested in worshipservices the practitioners tend to violate every biblical prohibition.

Instead of the gospel being clearly communicated, there is confusion.

Instead of the mind being engaged in love and adoration for God there isa suspension of the intellect in order to enjoy a moment of self-centeredpersonal pleasure.

The Word of God anticipated that the time would come when certain ofthe charismatic gifts would cease. Writing to the Church of Corinth Paulhad this to say in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. “Charity never faileth: butwhether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues,they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 Forwe know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which isperfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.”

The practical problem is that the Biblical commentators and teachers arenot united as to the meaning of the phrase “that which is perfect iscome.”

Some Bible teachers believe the words refer to the complete canon ofScripture. When the Scriptures were finally compiled and the canonicalbooks were determined, then prophecies failed, tongues ceased, andspecial revelatory knowledge vanished away.

Other Bible teachers believe the words in question refer to the secondcoming of Christ. The argument is that when Jesus comes the secondtime then the charismatic gifts will no longer be needed.

A third possibility is that the reference to “that which is perfect” refers tospiritual maturity. The word is teleios (tel'-i-os) and refers to somethingthat is complete—in various applications of labor, growth, mental andmoral character. The argument would be that when the Christian reachesspiritual maturity there will be no need for prophecies, tongues, or specialknowledge.

Since the Church is not united on how to understand the phrase “that which

is perfect”, I would urge this word of caution. Let the door be closed to believing

in and receiving tongues, prophecies and revelation—but not locked. In other

words God can sovereignly do what He will with His church. Christians must be

careful not to grieve or quench the Holy Spirit or to ascribe to Satan what might be

of God. So we do not lock the door against what God might do. But for the

moment we can close the door on the matters of tongues, prophecies, and special

revelation for there is no evidence they exist today when examined Scripturally

and practically.

And when someone comes knocking at the door of the Church saying, “I

can speak in tongues” let that utterance be examined and these questions

answered.

“Is God being worshipped? How is that known?”

“Is the gospel being communicated? In what manner and to whom?”

“Can you control this experience for you are so commanded in Scripture (1

Cor. 14:32).

“Are there Jews present in the audience?” That question needs to be asked

for tongues are said to be a sign to unbelieving Jews that God’s judgment has

fallen upon the nation of Israel. You will find that taught in 1 Corinthians 14:20-22

“Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but

in understanding be men. 21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and

other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me,

saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to

them that believe not…”

When someone comes knocking at the door of the church saying, “I have

the gift of prophecy and shall now speak forth the Word of God and reveal the

mind of the Lord and what shall come to pass” let such a person be examined.

When Edward Irving examined the Prophets in his congregation, circumstances

arose which caused even him to question the belief that their utterances came from

God.

First, despite the claim to so high an origin, the prophetic utterances

were sorely lacking in substance. That is still true today. Very frequently the

prophetic utterances were no more than ‘The Lord cometh!’ ‘The Lord will speak

to His people!’ or ‘The Lord hasteneth His coming!’

A man named Taplin was a leading figure among the Prophets and the

following utterance is typical of much that he said: “The Lord hath come down. He

is in the midst of you. His eye hath seen, His heart hath pitied the affliction of His

people, and he will deliver them. He will not leave a hoof behind.”

Utterances had broken out constantly during the service which celebrated the

opening of the Newman Street Church. They had begun with the outcry, “Oh, but

she shall be fruitful! Oh! Oh! Oh! She shall replenish the earth!’ And after many

similar statements they had ended with “Ah! Sanballat, Sanballat, Sanballat, the

Horonite, the Moabite, the Amornite! Ah! Confederate, confederate with the

Horonite! Ah! Look ye to it, look ye to it!”

The utterances were almost always of this meaningless nature and they

provoked the question, “Do they really come from God?” The modern charismatic

practice is still characterized by meaningless utterances. The church today should

test the spirits to see if they are of God and not assume they are.

If prophecies have not failed, if tongues have not ceased, if the gift of special

revelatory knowledge has not vanished away, then these charismatic gifts should

be recognized and embraced today.

But if they have been withdrawn by God, then they should not be imitated

and the Church should be grateful for the gifts which are clearly being manifested

in the gift of pastors, teachers, helpers, giving, hospitality and all the rest.

Now my pastoral prayer is that, “May the Lord Jesus Christ bring unity to

this body of believers and never allow the charismatic gifts to become a divisive

issue for us lest we too fall into doctrinal error, practical abuses, or come under

demonic influences. Amen.”

Doctrine of the Impeccability of Christ

1. In the year AD 451 the Council of Chalcedon met and formulated the faith of the Churchrespecting the person of Christ, and declared Him, “to be acknowledged in two natures,inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of the natures being inno wise taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved,and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons.”

2. The great truth enunciated is that the eternal Son of God took upon Himself our humanity,which includes making choices, and not that the man Jesus acquired divinity.

3. Vehement argument has raged around the question, “Did the Lord's deity render sinimpossible, and consequently make His temptations unreal?” The following proposition isplace for consideration: “If, to Christ, sin was impossible, then His temptation by Satan wasa meaningless display, and His victory a mere delusion, and His coronation (Phil. 2:6) ashadow.”

4. One answer to this problem is to argue for both positions. “We may say it was impossibleJesus would sin. We dare not say it was impossible He could not sin.”

5. While this response would please many, for others it does not do justice to either theScriptures or to the person of Christ. It is a matter of records that once the concept isconceded that Jesus could sin, the temptation comes to teach and believe that He did sin orthat He was less than very God of very God.

6. From the very beginning, the Church has argued that Jesus was free, both from hereditarydepravity, and from actual sin.

Jesus never offered a sacrifice for sin.

Jesus never prayed for forgiveness. Jesus frequently went up to the Temple, but He neveroffered sacrifice. He prayed, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34), but He never prayed:“Father, forgive me.”

Jesus taught that others needed the new birth. He said: “Ye must be born anew” (John3:7); but the words indicated that He had no such need. Jesus not only yielded to God'swill when made known to him, but also sought it: “I seek not mine own will, but the willof Him that sent me” (John 5:30). It was not personal experience of sin, but perfectresistance to it that made Jesus fit to deliver us from it. The choices that Jesus made tobehave and honor the will of the Father were consistent with His essence where there wasnothing which sin could touch.

Jesus challenged others to convict Him of a single sin. And the angel answered and saidunto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shallovershadow thee: “therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall becalled the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). “Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the

truth, why do ye not believe me?” (John 8:46). “Hereafter I will not talk much with you:for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me” (John 14:30). There was notthe slightest evil inclination upon which temptation could lay hold of Christ.

7. Another question arises, “If in Christ there was no sin, or tendency to sin, how could He betempted?”

8. The answer is that Jesus was tempted in the same way that Adam was tempted which issusceptibility to all the forms of innocent desire. To these desires temptations may appeal.Sin consists, not in these desires, but in the gratification of them out of God's order, andcontrary to God's will. So Satan appealed to our Lord's desire for food, for applause, and forpower (Matthew 4:11).

9. Because most temptations are addressed either to desire or fear, it can be said that Christ“was in all points tempted like as we are” (Hebrews 4:15).

10. The first temptation, in the wilderness, was addressed to His desire; the second, in thegarden, was addressed to His fears. Satan, after the first temptation, “departed from him fora season“ (Luke 4:13), but returned when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane.

11. Still, the Lord was able to say that “the prince of the world cometh: and he hath nothing inme” (John 14:30). Satan was trying to deter Jesus from His work at Calvary by rousingwithin Him vast and agonizing fear with which His holy soul was moved. But it did notwork, “He was without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).

12. To press the point of the Impeccability of Christ more closely, we ascribe to Christ not onlynatural, but also moral, integrity or moral perfection, that is sinlessness. This means notmerely that Christ could avoid sinning, and did actually avoid it, but also that it wasimpossible for Him to sin because of the essential bond between the human and the divinenatures.

13. The sinlessness of Christ clearly testifies to it in the following passages:

Luke 1:35 “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come uponthee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thingwhich shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

John 8:46 “Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye notbelieve me?”

John 14:30 “Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh,and hath nothing in me.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that wemight be made the righteousness of God in him.”

Hebrews 4:15 “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelingof our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

Hebrews 9:14 “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spiritoffered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve theliving God?”

1 Peter 2:22 “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.”

1 John 3:5 “And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is nosin.”

14. While Christ was made to be sin judicially, yet ethically He was free from both hereditarydepravity and actual sin.

15. Part of the problem for those who do not embrace the impeccability of Christ is the tendencyto believe that Jesus is but a man. Yet, there is at the same time a longing to ascribe to Himthe essence of God. There is also the desire to affirm divinity for Christ in virtue of theimmanence of God in Him, and the powerful presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Thetension does not do justice to the truth of the two natures in Christ: He is both divine andhuman in one Person forever. (Studies in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, W.E. Best).

The Tragic Life of Rev. Edward Irving

August 4, 1792 * December 7, 1832

The Forerunner of the Charismatic Movement

Introduction

I. The Novel Beliefs of Edward Irving dIrving believed that God was giving new revelationsIrving believed that all sickness was of Satan or because of divine judgmentIrving began to trust modern day ‘Prophets’ and “Apostles’Irving separated the baptism of the Holy Spirit from salvationIrving taught on the “sinful substance of the Saviour”

II. Practical Lessons from the Life of Edward IrvingThe tragic consequences of relinquishing pastoral authorityDoctrinal error breeds more doctrinal error

III. Foundational TruthsBecause of the Old Testament prophecies Jesus could not have sinnedBecause of there is moral certitude, Jesus could not have sinnedJesus Christ possessed two natures in one Person; He was the God-manJesus is not “like me”

IV. Observations on the Charismatic MovementThose within the charismatic movement mean wellThose within the charismatic movement are not wrong on all pointsThose within the charismatic movement are highly susceptible to doctrinal heresy,

practical abuses of the spiritual gifts and demonic influence

V. The Appeal of the Charismatic MovementA sincere beliefs that all the apostolic gifts are functional todayA longing for personal joy and happiness in worship

VI. Conclusions about Specific Charismatic GiftsThere is no objective evidence that tongue, apostles, prophets and prophecies or special

revelations continue to existIf these are reported to be present in a congregation the church has a responsibility to test

the spirits that in its midst

VII. A Pastoral Prayer